Denial of Evolution VI.

[rpenner]

Call me crazy and let the chips fall where they may.

The kinder readers will assume (or work under the assumption) that you are simply ignorant and arrogant to the point where you think we care what you, in your ignorance, believe to be true in a factual situation. (SAD)
But most of us will admit the possibility exists that you are not so ignorant and are deliberately lying (BAD). The leading hypotheses on why you might lie is that you take sadistic pleasure in people reacting to you in a negative manner (BAD-BAD) or that you think you are supporting some authority but are actually undermining their purported authority by making easy-to-check lies. (BAD-SAD).
Finally, while none of us claim to be mental health professionals, the possibility that you actually are delusional or suffer irrational impulses to undermine your own credibility may occur to us. (MAD)

Whatever the reason, it's not really doing anything to support your cause by posting in such a manner.

 

[Randwolf]

I have a suspicion that you don't fully understand the concept of evolution (the gradual change in shape and attributes of ANYTHING).

I have a suspicion that you are wrong.

A galaxy is an evolved system. All dynamic system evolve. It is not restricted to living organisms only (although mostly applied in that context).

Thanks for the language lesson though.

 

[billvon]

I have a suspicion that you don't fully understand the concept of evolution (the gradual change in shape and attributes of ANYTHING).
A galaxy is an evolved system. All dynamic system evolve. It is not restricted to living organisms only (although mostly applied in that context).

"Evolution" is also the name of a parachute rig popular in the late 90's. It was one of the first with integrated riser covers. Evolution was also the name of an episode of Star Trek and the name of a Boyz II Men album.

But it sure would be silly to claim that that's what people were talking about, since the topic is clearly the evolution of life.

 

[Randwolf]

Theoretically speaking, IMO, evolution is the expression in reality of inherent potential (that which may become reality) of a system.

Isn't all reality an expression of inherent potential?

Actually husbandry is man's application of evolutionary laws. Breeding livestock for milk production or beef or selecting a prize bull to impregnate a herd with superior DNA, and thereby strengthening the offspring.

Actually, husbandry does not require "breeding" for anything. Simply cultivating crops suffices to meet the definition, no selection is necessary.

hus·band·ry (hzbn-dr)

a. The act or practice of cultivating crops and breeding and raising livestock; agriculture.​

 

[wegs]

"Evolution" is also the name of a parachute rig popular in the late 90's. It was one of the first with integrated riser covers. Evolution was also the name of an episode of Star Trek and the name of a Boyz II Men album.

But it sure would be silly to claim that that's what people were talking about, since the topic is clearly the evolution of life.

ok. i feel better, now.

but i guess my question still remains...is there evolution 'outside' of living organisms? if so, how do you measure that? who measures it?
sort of like...if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it...does it make a sound? if there's no life on a planet, how can we tell the planet is 'evolving?'
is evolution merely about change, or change as in ...progress...improvement?

 

[Stanley]

Huh??? That's got to be the stupidest thing I've read all week. (And that's saying a lot since I read the newspaper every day. ) We have written records older than 1000BCE! Who wrote them if not humans? Space aliens? Angels and demons? Men from our own future with a time machine? A race of highly intelligent raccoons who died out without leaving a trace of their existence?

We have well-documented continuity of civilizations going back further than that!

Better than that, we have Ötzi, the perfectly preserved remains of a human who lived more than five thousand years ago!

What I am saying is that the timelines laid out that humans have inhabited this planet longer than a few thousand years dont really add up. Seems to me that the evidence, even doing a cursory review of you link indicate much less than five thousand years ago!

If you think about it with an open mind it is not stupid at all. That it is right is another issue.

How many years ago was 1000BCE?

 

[Randwolf]

What I am saying is that the timelines laid out that humans have inhabited this planet longer than a few thousand years dont really add up. Seems to me that the evidence, even doing a cursory review of you link indicate much less than five thousand years ago!

The timelines "don't add up" according to whose math? Yours? What evidence would you accept for humans being here "longer than a few thousand years"?

If you think about it with an open mind it is not stupid at all.

No. Just ignorant.

How many years ago was 1000BCE?

Classic...

 

[Stanley]

Classic...

Well how many years ago was 1000BCE?

According to the other person stated: "We have written records older than 1000BCE!"

As far as the timelines, they seem very odd to me. Just strange and you ever have a feeling that something is amiss?

Let me ask you Rand, how many years have humans been present on the Earth?

 

[billvon]

but i guess my question still remains...is there evolution 'outside' of living organisms?

There's no evolution as we are discussing it, no.

if there's no life on a planet, how can we tell the planet is 'evolving?'

It's not. It's certainly changing, but it's not changing to better adapt to its environment. It's just following basic physical laws (weathering, dissociation etc)

or change as in ...progress...improvement?

That's a common trap. There's no "progress", no "improvement" - just organisms that survive a little better. It might mean getting stronger to better catch food. That's an improvement, right? It might also mean losing your eyes (as cave fish do.) But wait - that's not improvement; you're blind!

But that's how evolution works. It just moves towards survival, not 'improvement.'

 

[Randwolf]

Well how many years ago was 1000BCE?

According to the other person stated: "We have written records older than 1000BCE!"

Sigh. Approximately three thousand... BCE --> "Before Current Era". This is 2013 CE (or AD)

you ever have a feeling that something is amiss?

Often. There is much amiss in this world.

Let me ask you Rand, how many years have humans been present on the Earth?

Much longer than a few thousand years. Give me your definition of "humans" first and I'll be more precise.

Also, you never answered me:
What evidence would you accept for humans being here "longer than a few thousand years"?

 

[Write4U]

I will freely admit to not knowing that. I thought evolution only dealt with living and sustainable organisms.

How would we "measure" evolution outside of a living or once living organism? Further, who or what determines progress if there is no sustainable life forms on say a particular planet?

Oh, and hello write4u

Hi Wegs, I am glad I was able to open another window,

Gravity (an attractive force) and momentum are the main driving forces of galaxial evolutionary processes. Long ago galaxies evolved into the shapes we can observe today. A spiral galaxy did not start as a spiral, it evolved into a spiral by the forces of gravity and the speed of rotation of the central causal agent.

The placement of the sun and its planets (including earth) in a little corner in an outer arm of the Milky Way (a spiral galaxy) was a result of galaxial evolution. It is hard to grasp that we are travelling through space at tens of thousands of MPH, being dragged by the spinning gravitational center of the Milky Way. This functionality is also evident in our solar system.

From wiki,

Main article: Formation and evolution of the Solar System

The Solar System formed 4.568 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud.[37] This initial cloud was likely several light-years across and probably birthed several stars.[38] As is typical of molecular clouds, this one consisted mostly of hydrogen, with some helium, and small amounts of heavier elements fused by previous generations of stars. As the region that would become the Solar System, known as the pre-solar nebula,[39] collapsed, conservation of angular momentum caused it to rotate faster. The centre, where most of the mass collected, became increasingly hotter than the surrounding disc.[38] As the contracting nebula rotated faster, it began to flatten into a protoplanetary disc with a diameter of roughly 200 AU[38] and a hot, dense protostar at the centre.[40][41] The planets formed by accretion from this disc,[42] in which dust and gas gravitationally attracted each other, coalescing to form ever larger bodies. Hundreds of protoplanets may have existed in the early Solar System, but they either merged or were destroyed, leaving the planets, dwarf planets, and leftover minor bodies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System

Then to think that all this evolved from the Big Bang, a time of total chaos, slowly organizing itself in accordance with natural laws and functions. It is truly awe inspiring, but does not necessarily mean, it was intentionally created. The potential for this evolution was released during the BB and by the laws of nature and universal constants (determinism) caused every dynamic (evolutionary) action thereafter.

Gravity is a Universal Constant. The speed of light is a universal constant. Cause and Effect is a universal constant. All natural laws are based on or expressions of universal constants.

In theist terms, the wholeness and its constants are properties which suggest a God (intelligence). I believe that the neutral term Potential is better suited to explain the evolution of the universe and all that is in it. David Bohm called it, "the Implicate"

 

[wegs]

There's no evolution as we are discussing it, no.

okay

It's not. It's certainly changing, but it's not changing to better adapt to its environment. It's just following basic physical laws (weathering, dissociation etc)

i see, okay.

That's a common trap. There's no "progress", no "improvement" - just organisms that survive a little better. It might mean getting stronger to better catch food. That's an improvement, right? It might also mean losing your eyes (as cave fish do.) But wait - that's not improvement; you're blind!

But that's how evolution works. It just moves towards survival, not 'improvement.'

either i learned this and forgot it, or i didn't learn it. you explain things quite well.
i see, but for the sake of this discussion, if i had my druthers, i'd say higher rate of surivival (as we have evolved) is synonmous with improvement.
thx billvon.

 

[Write4U]

Well how many years ago was 1000BCE?

According to the other person stated: "We have written records older than 1000BCE!"

As far as the timelines, they seem very odd to me. Just strange and you ever have a feeling that something is amiss?

Let me ask you Rand, how many years have humans been present on the Earth?

Perhaps we can establish a baseline.

Primitive humans who inhabited the coast of South Africa 165,000 years ago and lived on a diet rich in shellfish could be the original ancestors of everyone alive today, a study suggests

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/first-humans-lived-at-southern-tip-of-africa-397161.html

This seems to show that humans were present (at least) 165,000 years ago. Does that answer your question?

 

[leopold]

ok. i feel better, now.

but i guess my question still remains...is there evolution 'outside' of living organisms?

evolution as applied to life is apparently very complex but if you are asking if molecules can join together to make bigger molecules then yes.
but evolution isn't just about making or adding to molecules.
it probably has some to do with "finding" the right protein that unlocks a catalyst or activates an enzyme.

if so, how do you measure that? who measures it?

it's the chemists job to do that, and they are very good at it.

 

[billvon]

If i had my druthers, i'd say higher rate of surivival (as we have evolved) is synonmous with improvement. :

If you stick with that definition then "improvement" works.

I mentioned that because I often see people ask "if we are still evolving why aren't we getting smarter/stronger/taller?" In an environment like the one people live in today in the US, being too stupid to understand how birth control works, or being too poor a planner to avoid having kids if you don't want to, is actually an evolutionary advantage.

 

[wegs]

Hi Wegs, I am glad I was able to open another window,

Gravity (an attractive force) and momentum are the main driving forces of galaxial evolutionary processes. Long ago galaxies evolved into the shapes we can observe today. A spiral galaxy did not start as a spiral, it evolved into a spiral by the forces of gravity and the speed of rotation of the central causal agent.

The placement of the sun and its planets (including earth) in a little corner in an outer arm of the Milky Way (a spiral galaxy) was a result of galaxial evolution. It is hard to grasp that we are travelling through space at tens of thousands of MPH, being dragged by the spinning gravitational center of the Milky Way. This functionality is also evident in our solar system.

From wiki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System

Then to think that all this evolved from the Big Bang, a time of total chaos, slowly organizing itself in accordance with natural laws and functions. It is truly awe inspiring, but does not necessarily mean, it was intentionally created. The potential for this evolution was released during the BB and by the laws of nature and universal constants (determinism) caused every dynamic (evolutionary) action thereafter.

Gravity is a Universal Constant. The speed of light is a universal constant. Cause and Effect is a universal constant. All natural laws are based on or expressions of universal constants.

In theist terms, the wholeness and its constants are properties which suggest a God (intelligence). I believe that the neutral term Potential is better suited to explain the evolution of the universe and all that is in it. David Bohm called it, "the Implicate"

I knew of the constants, but was unaware of the term evolution being attached to it. Interesting!

This is why I believe anyways, that science isn't all that loosely connected to a 'Creator.'
'Man' discovers science. But, who or what created that which he discovers/discovered?
Thx for elabortaing on this.

 

[Write4U]

"Evolution" is also the name of a parachute rig popular in the late 90's. It was one of the first with integrated riser covers. Evolution was also the name of an episode of Star Trek and the name of a Boyz II Men album.

But it sure would be silly to claim that that's what people were talking about, since the topic is clearly the evolution of life.

The list from Wiki listed evolutionary functions not proper names.

I do understand your point about the topic, but it is hard to talk about 'evolutionary functions in living things' without having an understanding of the principles of the evolutionary function.

Fundamentally I see no difference in comparing human evolution and say Galactic evolution. The process is explainable through physics, not some kind of special non-natural imperative.

 

[wegs]

If you stick with that definition then "improvement" works.

that's how i understand it to mean anyways.

I mentioned that because I often see people ask "if we are still evolving why aren't we getting smarter/stronger/taller?" In an environment like the one people live in today in the US, being too stupid to understand how birth control works, or being too poor a planner to avoid having kids if you don't want to, is actually an evolutionary advantage.

lol yep!

if we're speaking of mortality stats...interesting read:

http://www.rgs.org/OurWork/Schools/...live+forever/Why+are+people+living+longer.htm

 

[billvon]

Fundamentally I see no difference in comparing human evolution and say Galactic evolution.

One involves heritable genetic traits expressed as phenotypes, a selection system based on reproductive fitness, and the mechanism of mutation creating random changes in a genome.

The other is how physical processes work on a galaxy. No genetic inheritance. No random mutation. No reproduction.

I see a very large number of differences.

The process is explainable through physics, not some kind of special non-natural imperative.

Both processes are. But it's still silly to equate them.

Both Miller Lite and black holes are "explainable through physics." Doesn't mean that there's no difference between them, and doesn't mean that comparisons between them are valid.

 

[wegs]

The list from Wiki listed evolutionary functions not proper names.

I do understand your point about the topic, but it is hard to talk about 'evolutionary functions in living things' without having an understanding of the principles of the evolutionary function.

Fundamentally I see no difference in comparing human evolution and say Galactic evolution. The process is explainable through physics, not some kind of special non-natural imperative.

Interesting, but to me.... Science according to me that is...lol...I believe that planets for example should only be considered 'evolving' if they can host life.
If they can't...then, they haven't really evolved, when you think about it.
For example, Jupiter can't (and most likely will never) host life. How has it evolved, then?